Thursday, January 8, 2015

CHURCHILL ON ISLAMISM (1899)

CHURCHILL ON ISLAM Unbelievable, but the speech below was written in 1899.

(Check Wikipedia - The River War). The attached short speech from Winston Churchill, was delivered

by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many,

but expresses in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language,

of which he was a past master. Sir Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late

19th and 20th centuries. He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and

statesman, a great war leader and British Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt.

He was a prophet in his own time. He died on 24th January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and,

after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.

 

HERE IS THE SPEECH:

 

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy,

which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture,

sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the

Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement,

the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to

some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction

of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may

show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant

and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step;

and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had

vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

 

Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).

Churchill saw it coming.


For an interesting addendum on this, read what the George SOROS funded SNOPES says about this. 


http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=71794

We are entering an era of shattered illusions

We are entering an era of shattered illusions
shattered010515

The structure of history is held together by two essential and distinct kinds of links, two moments in time to which no one is immune: moments of epiphany and moments of catastrophe. Sometimes, both elements intermingle at the birth of a singular epoch. Men often awaken to understanding in the midst of great crisis; and, invariably, great crises can erupt when men awaken. These are the moments when social gravity vanishes, when the kinetic glue of normalcy melts away, and we begin to see the true foundations of our world, if a foundation exists at all.

Catastrophe occurs when too many people refuse to accept that around us always are two universes at work. There is the cold, hard reality that underlies everything. And on the surface is a veil of deceit and compromise. The more humanity compromises vital truths in order to enjoy the comfort of illusions, the more mind-shattering it will be when those illusions fall away. These two worlds can coexist only for short periods of time, and they will always and eventually collide. There is no other possible outcome.

I think it could also be said that the more polarized our realities become, the more explosive and disastrous the reaction will be when the separation is removed. I feel it absolutely necessary to relate this danger because today humanity is living so historically far from the bedrock of reality, political reality, social reality and economic reality that the stage has been set for a kind of full spectrum destabilization that has never been seen before.

Though my analysis tends to lean toward the economic side of things, I am not only speaking of shattered illusions in the financial realm. In my next article, one last time I plan to go over nearly every mainstream economic statistic used today to misdirect the public (from national debt to unemployment to inflation to retail sales and corporate profits) and expose why they are false while giving you the real numbers. Most of my regular readers are familiar with much of this information, but I think it important to consolidate it all in a single article so that we can take stock of where our society sits fiscally as we enter 2015. For now, though, I want to discuss the core problem of self-deception, the problem that makes all the rest of our problems possible.

When the initial phase of the global collapse was triggered in 2007 and 2008, there was a massive explosion in interest and education in terms of liberty issues and alternative economic awareness. I remember back in 2006 when I had just begun writing for the movement that the ratio of people on any given Web forum or in any given public discussion was vastly opposed to alternative viewpoints and information — at least 50-1 by my observations. We were at the height of the real estate frenzy; everyone was buying houses with money they didn’t have and borrowing on their mortgages to purchase stuff they didn’t need. Life was good. The shock of the credit crisis came quickly and abruptly for most people, and there has been a considerable shift in the kinds of discussions many are willing to entertain about our future. Yet the idea that such things can happen despite a consensus of social and geopolitical health does not seemed to have soaked into the thick skulls of the average person.

Time, unfortunately, has a magical ability to erase vigilance. It’s not that the public has necessarily forgotten that danger can strike anytime anywhere (though some of them have). Many of them know full well that our culture is floating on a paper-thin ship in a turbulent sea. However, the disturbing trend today reveals that people have decided they do not care. “Taking the blue pill” is the rising rally cry from the so-called “new normal.” Yes, the economy is an illusion, the political system is an illusion and the various global conflicts our society participates in are mostly illusions. But we “can’t do anything about it,” so we might as well profit from these illusions while we can, right?

It was said during the economic collapse of the 1930s that the Great Depression was a depression only for the 30 percent of people that had lost everything. For the employed and the financially secure, the depression was much like any other time. This is the point at which we stand today. With nearly a third of the U.S. population kicked off the unemployment rolls and approximately half the country dependent on a government check of some kind for their survival, the current depression is only now beginning to feel like a depression for anyone. The soup lines have received a fresh candy coating of EBT cards and welfare payments. But the illusion is finally fading, and this should be of great concern to us all in 2015.

Even more frightening is our culture’s deluded sense of what a collapse actually looks like. For many, collapse is a cinematic and overnight affair, with zombies, nuclear bombs and mass panic. In real life, and throughout history, collapse is a process. Since at least 2008, the U.S. and the rest of the world have been experiencing that process. Everyone is waiting for equities to implode and for social unrest to erupt before they take the threat seriously, but these are not signals of collapse. These are the things that occur when a collapse has run its course. Collapse never occurs overnight. It takes years for the effects of social and fiscal breakdown to be visibly felt. And when they are felt, many people refuse to notice. Eighty years ago, America was halfway through the Great Depression, and mainstream economists were still claiming that recovery was right around the corner. Illusion and self-deception can be so powerful that the worst miseries can be normalized, at least for a little while.

And it isn’t only the general public that is stricken with crippling bias. There are those within the liberty movement who have bought into false paradigms for various reasons. There are those who still think that the “conflict” between Eastern and Western politicians and banking elites is somehow real. There are those who believe that Russia and China, despite their numerous and undeniable ties to the global banking syndicate (information I have covered in multiple articles over the years), are the good guys, while Western nations are the bad guys, rather than them all being mere subsidiaries and franchises of the same monstrous globalist machine.

They hold onto this illusion, I think, because it is much more frightening to accept the reality that we are alone, that the liberty movement is the first and last line of defense against centralization, that the responsibility for the future of independence and individual freedom rests on our shoulders. It is much easier to fantasize that there are others out there, nations and governments with armies and capital, that are on our side and will fight our battles for us. This illusion will be a painful one for many in the movement as they begin to realize that the East is actually working in tandem with international financiers instead of working against them.

There are also those in the liberty movement who cling to the notion that the fight against globalism will be won without physical conflict. They believe that if we simply protest long enough, play the political and legal game long enough, nullify long enough, refuse to participate long enough, that the elitist edifice, an edifice which has existed for centuries and has manipulated historical precedence for just as long, will suddenly disappear in a puff of fairy dust.

The first problem with this strategy is that it relies on the assumption of time. Sure, anything is possible given ample opportunity. Perhaps the movement could grind away at the New World Order over the course of several decades until the majority of the masses are awake and aware (which is exactly how long it would take). However, I think it infinitely foolish to presume that we have decades to accomplish such a task. If the past has shown us anything, it is that tyranny does not respect reason and, at a certain point, couldn’t care less about image. Tyranny respects only power. It does not respect the protestations of ants it can crush under foot, but it will make a wide path around a rattlesnake ready to strike. While there is utility in the pursuit of intellectual and philosophical combat, if you are not willing to be the rattlesnake as well, then you are not going to effect change against such an opponent. You will eventually be stepped on.

The refusal to accept responsibility for one’s own defense is yet another product of fear — fear that the enemy is too powerful, that all resistance is futile. But resistance is only assured failure if resistance is never undertaken. Sheeple defeat themselves within their own minds before they ever stand up, so they never stand. This is the only reason totalitarian elements ever achieve success. Again, many in the liberty movement are going to face a rude awakening when they realize they have relied too much on the notion of the system policing itself, instead of preparing for the worst-case scenario.

And finally, the globalists themselves suffer from a veritable fog of illusions to which I can speak only briefly.

We are stepping over the threshold of an age that will shatter the illusions of everyone, and the internationalists are no exception. The root pillar of elitist globalism itself is that some men are born to rule, while other men are born to serve. Some men are born kings, and other men are born slaves. The psychopathy of this belief system should be evident, but psychopathy also elicits blinding ego and hubris, which smothers any inherent questions of motive. I do not think the elites ever actually consider the validity of their own philosophies. I am relatively certain their manner of viewing the world is much like that of a cult, a religious sect driven by the brutality of zealotry rather than the empowering nature of understanding.

Such men cannot be reasoned with. In fact, zealots often revel in their ability to trample all other world views as they grasp for complete dominance of their ideology. The illusion of rightness is far more important to them than actual truth, and this is their greatest weakness. Hidden under all the posturing and power grabbing, deep in the recesses of their own assumed omnipotence, I sense an ever present terror within the globalist culture. I sense a terror that comes only from the seed of doubt.

The incredible array of propaganda leveled at the public, the constant war gaming and mind gaming against the citizenry, the endless hailstorm of legal maneuvering designed to erase our sense connection with our natural rights and liberties, the tidal wave of fearmongering, and all the manipulations and scapegoats and elaborate theatrical displays all reek of fear. For if the globalists were truly as omnipotent as they pretend to be — if they really were all-knowing philosopher kings born to rule — then they would already have their New World Order. They would not need lies. They would not need the threat of force. The undeniable power of their ideology would be enough if their ideology actually had any validity. Lies are designed to hide lack of validity and lack of strength. The globalists are, at bottom, a hollow shell desperately clamoring for substance.

The thoroughness of the elitist con exhibits a fundamental doubt of success. The globalists wish they could predict the future, but they cannot. So they are just as afraid as the rest. I believe we are entering an era in which they will feel the stark pain of shattered illusions and the destruction of their own fantasies, no less felt than the pain of the rest of the world.

Our mission as an opposing force to globalism is to come to terms with our own illusions and to overcome them, to stop compromising and to stop waiting for the final shoe to drop and to take positive action now rather than after the endgame develops. This means preparation and organization for the worst-case scenarios. This means making one’s family, neighborhood and community as self-reliant and secure as possible. The excuses have to stop. The distractions and intellectualized silver bullet solutions have to stop. Hard work and risk are all that are left, all that matters. If we do this, and if we do this now, then victory is possible. In any contest of strength and will, he who knows himself best and has shed all illusion will be the winner.

–Brandon Smith




WHO'S THE BOSS: Public Servants Are Employees Of The People

Quoting Jeff Brower in his response to a Facebook Post by RonDeSantis (R-FL) on Tuesday after the Boehner vote.  (https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=833656916692370&id=464253846966014

"You were contacted by the only people that matter- your constituents.  They told you to vote for Gohmert. A couple said Yoho, a couple said Trey.  There was clear direction from your employers to NOT support Boehner.  Nothing could have been more clear in your "listening" tour and Face Book communications.  

You choose to not listen to your employer who is apparently too stupid to know your inside baseball excuses.  Your problem is we know the drill all to well. We are tired of being slapped in the face.

 In the real world outside DC when an employer gives clear and specific direction for the job you were hired to do but refuse to do it, the employee is terminated.  That is what I am doing.  You no longer have my support and I am tired of hearing the excuses of why a vote was allowed to come to the floor when your one vote could have stopped it and now when real leadership could have provided the necessary votes to replace the speaker of OUR House you were not be found.  

So your can cry all you want that you were not properly contacted by your associates in the back room.  You were publicly contacted by your former employers."

Though this post was from a Florida constituent, he reflects the sentiments of millions of Americans who campaigned for conservative leadership who ultimately won, yet out of the gate, failed the test of trustworthiness. All the excuses in the world cannot change that. We did not send victims to Washington. We sent patriots.

Flood of anti-Boehner calls rattles leadership

Flood of anti-Boehner calls rattles leadership
                         
Speaker Boehner arrives at a press conference following the House GOP conference meeting on Capitol Hill. (Graeme Jennings/Washington Examiner)

It wasn’t the Republican votes against House Speaker John Boehner that truly rattled the GOP leadership, it was the phone calls.

There were hundreds of them, jamming the phone lines of the district and Capitol offices of dozens of House GOP lawmakers.

The callers were not angry about legislation. Nor were they asking for help with a local matter. They were demanding their representative vote against Boehner Tuesday in his bid to win election to a third term as speaker.

For the GOP leadership, the flood of calls was a game changer. It thrusted the leadership into triage mode as it scrambled to heal the growing rift among House Republicans.

“We’ve never been lobbied quite like that,” House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, told the Washington Examiner on Wednesday. “We yesterday began a new era of circumstances, and one is that we have members who are going to solicit the outside in ways that they have not previously.”

Boehner was so agitated by the phone calls that he raised the issue to his rank and file in a private meeting Wednesday morning, those in the room reported.

Boehner was defensive, according to witnesses. He told GOP lawmakers he has long espoused the Tea Party principles that the callers accused him of abandoning.

But he was also conciliatory to conservatives who are dissatisfied with him.

After the meeting, he told reporters he may reverse the punishment against two lawmakers who ran against him Tuesday.

“We're going to have a family conversation, which we had this morning, about bringing our team together,” Boehner said. “And I expect that those conversations over the next couple of days will continue and we'll come to a decision about how we go forward.”

Twenty-four Republicans voted against Boehner Tuesday, including many who specifically pointed to the phone calls as influencing their decision.

“After hearing from the fine people of N.C. with the desire to change the status quo, I cast my vote for a new direction in leadership,” Rep. Mark Meadows tweeted after voting for Rep. Daniel Webster of Florida for speaker.

Other Republicans who voted for Boehner put out statements qualifying their support for him. Their messages were aimed specifically at the constituents who jammed the phone lines in opposition.

“Many constituents from Idaho contacted me to let me know that I should not support him,” Rep. Raul Labrador said in a statement after voting for Boehner. “I want them to know that I did not make this decision lightly. I share the view of the majority of my constituents who are deeply frustrated by the way the House has run the last four years.”

Jammed phone lines on Capitol Hill are not uncommon, particularly if a high-profile or controversial bill is nearing a vote. Tea Party groups in December called Congress en masse to protest the $1.1 trillion government spending bill, for example.

But this time, the callers were opposed to the leaders, not legislation.

Anger from conservatives stems from years of clashes between the mainstream GOP and its sizable Tea Party faction, comprised of dozens of the most conservative lawmakers.

Their most recent gripe is the hastily-passed government spending bill, which they believe the GOP leadership rushed to the floor for a vote, despite opposition from conservatives.

Many conservatives also believe Republican House leaders are not moving aggressively enough to curb President Obama’s recent executive actions on the environment and immigration.

Earlier this week, Tea Party groups rallied their base to call the Capitol, listing the switchboard phone number on Twitter. Some popular conservative talk show hosts joined in, too.

“Want to fire John Boehner as speaker?” Tea Party Patriots tweeted. “Call your Republican representative now and tell them to vote against Boehner for speaker.”

In the end, the effort was disorganized and fell far short of succeeding, but 24 lawmakers voted against him, the biggest opposition since the Civil War.

“They learned a lesson,” Sessions said. “And we did, too.”




6 Things I Learned From the Speaker Vote


6 things I learned from the speaker vote http://wapo.st/1s5Dabv @scottrigell @@jodyhice 

GOP Tensions Escalate After Speaker Vote

The day after, damage control, excuses, revenge from the establishment and retribution from the right. 

GOP Tensions Escalate After Speaker Vote

January 7, 2015 Rank-and-file Republicans are fuming at what they see as the heavy-handed tactics of Republican leaders, one day after a divisive vote that narrowly handed Speaker John Boehner the gavel for another term.

Members who opposed Boehner on the floor are frustrated that two rebels have already been stripped of committee assignments, while the speaker's allies, angered by an embarrassingly close vote that played out on national television, warn darkly of more punishment to come. And some conservatives who backed Boehner complain that they are now facing a different kind of retribution—from the Right.

Boehner himself made a plea for unity and downplayed any talk of revenge Wednesday morning, a day after declining to reappoint a key challenger, Rep. Daniel Webster, and one of his supporters to plum committee assignments. Boehner said the decision may not be final, but his allies are not being so coy.

"Because of some of the activities on the floor, two of our members weren't put back on the committee immediately," Boehner said. "We're going to have a family conversation ... about bringing our team together, and I expect that those conversations over the next couple of days will continue and we'll come to a decision about how to move forward."

There were signs Wednesday evening that Boehner may be softening his stance. Rep. Richard Nugent, who voted against Boehner and was subsequently stripped of his Rules Committee assignment, met with the speaker.

"I said, 'I don't regret it. I've been very loyal to you in the past, I'm still loyal to you today,'" Nugent recounted. "'But you know, I needed to get your attention. This wasn't part of an organized effort. There may be other ones that were part of an organized effort. I wasn't.' And I told him why."

Nugent said he has been frustrated that a measure to take on mental health in the criminal justice system and another dealing with veterans have been held up. He also bemoaned the power of some staff over members, he said.

Boehner told Nugent that he and Webster are two separate cases. While Nugent voted against the speaker, it was Webster who allowed himself to be drafted into a haphazard campaign against Boehner.

But will they get their panel assignments back? "He hasn't made a decision, and he's thinking about it," Nugent said.

Meanwhile, Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions has been advocating on behalf of his members. He spoke on their behalf at the GOP Conference meeting Wednesday morning.

"I tried to let the conference know that I think these are both very talented young men who we have on the committee and I value their work," Sessions said. "It's really something they're going to have to work out with the speaker."

Retribution is not being enacted simply against those who participated in the attempted coup, and members are using that fact in a plea for leniency for their colleagues. Members who have often butted heads with the speaker but who voted for him on Tuesday said leadership should understand they are facing consequences from the Right for supporting Boehner in the face of an onslaught of people demanding they depose him.

Don't Miss Today's Top Stories

“

Excellent!"

Rick, Executive Director for Policy

Rep. Raul Labrador rose in front of his colleagues at Wednesday's Conference meeting and said he has already drawn a primary challenge over his vote for Boehner. Labrador read from his smartphone from the more than 4,000 comments people had posted on his Facebook page, including one calling him a "scumbag asshole" for supporting Boehner—and joked that it's all true. Conservative talk-radio host Mark Levin had specifically directed listeners to target Labrador for his vote, he noted.

Other members spent Wednesday afternoon defending their vote for Boehner to local press, and some said that after December's omnibus vote and Tuesday's display on the House floor, they have never been under more pressure from constituents.

Some lawmakers want heads to roll at the staff level. Rep. Andy Harris was incensed, addressing the leadership team in the private conference meeting to tell them it was unacceptable for an anonymous GOP leadership aide to call sitting members of Congress "fringe guys" because they voted against Boehner. Harris's comment drew thanks from a number of his colleagues.

In response, the speaker described those remarks as "despicable," according to a source in the room.

Even if Boehner is keeping a cool head in public, it is clear that he and his allies are infuriated by Tuesday's public insurrection, and a larger backlash could still be forthcoming against the 25 members who voted against Boehner.

"I think the majority of the conference would like to see … something done with them, because they put the conservative agenda at stake with their wanting to be on television," said Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, a close Boehner ally. "A couple people got up, and they were whining about they didn't want retribution, the speaker shouldn't do it. They don't realize the speaker's not one of the guys who wants to do it, but all of us think they should have retribution, and it tells me how weak they are if they're getting up there whining about having retribution against them."

And Rep. Peter King said that if this had happened in New York state politics, the consequences might have been more severe. "Guys take on a speaker and lose, they're never heard from again," he said.

The calculation now for leaders is how to retaliate against the members without alienating more colleagues. The response could come in subtle ways, such as denying members sponsorship of key bills or suppressing their advancement on committees important to their district. The National Republican Congressional Committee could withhold financial support, jeopardizing their reelection.

But any response will likely happen slowly and calculatedly so as not to create martyrs.

Rep. Trent Franks, who has often voted out of step with leadership but who supported Boehner on Tuesday, said he could be convinced that detractors should be pulled from committees if the larger message is that their presence makes conference unity and committee work more difficult.

"If this is about vengeance, that's one thing that I don't think will play very well at all," Franks said. "If it's about something else, then I think that has to be articulated so it is clearly differentiated between that and some sort of retribution."

Still, punishment enough is that members who voted against Boehner are spending Wednesday in limbo, unsure whether they will be directly retaliated against, and even more unsure of the subtle ways their vote could come back to haunt them in the form of damaged relationships.

Rep. Scott Rigell, who recently secured a slot on the Appropriations Committee, voted against Boehner, and said he does not know whether he will face consequences. He said he plans to meet with leadership Wednesday to smooth over the situation.

"I'm not discounting the possibility that something could happen," he said. "My hope is leadership sees the vote for what it was. It was a principled vote and reflected my judgment at the time with the options that were before me."




Wednesday, January 7, 2015

THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 07, 2015

Daniel-webster

By Irene F. Starkehaus - 

Sorry. I'm sure Representative Daniel Webster gets tired of that literary reference. I can't help myself. It's too symmetrical to pass up.

For the record, I am not suggesting through my allusion that John Boehner is the devil. He doesn't strike me as someone who demonstrates that much enterprise. No offense intended, but Boehner seems more like middle management, Screwtape material. You know, a wizened, old curmudgeon content to live out his existence taking orders from the higher-ups, helping a novice or two in charge of securing damnations and receiving a nice pension for not making waves when the real devils are at work.

Not making waves, this is where Boehner really excels. I think that the one word that embodies the spirit of John Boehner's tenure as Speaker is "compromise." Wouldn't you agree? Always so willing to reach across that aisle to compromise with the people who are sadistically destroying the fundamental principle that our rights are endowed by our Creator and not secured by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Considering of all the notable compromises that litter our history books with mediocrity, it's possible that John Boehner's willingness to compromise in selling out the American people during the passage of Obamacare will rank right up there at the top.

History in the making – that's what the media said about the challenge to John Boehner's supreme authority, but I'm still trying to puzzle out what was so extraordinary about it all. Rep. Daniel Webster of Florida challenged Boehner for the Speakership. Boehner rallied his supporters and defeated Webster. Boehner rained down a blaze of retribution upon Webster by removing him from various committees and now combs through the list of Republican people labeled betrayers as he begins the Great Purge.